amidst the calls for change, it's the question I keep coming back to... outside of specific Bush programs and Bush's bad (re: no) leadership / managerial skills, is there something fundamentally wrong with the US government that goes beyond mere policy and politics?
is there something fundamentally wrong with the US government?
- Thread starter nageov3t
- Start date
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Yes, but that answer requires detail. There is something wrong with it because there is something wrong with the people who support it--most of the people around us. A term I like and heard recently was that of "anti-intellectual". Our society is anti-intellectual and it is, by any reasonable account, run by ignoramouses. So the problem is not this country's government, which is as good as the best and better than most, but the system itself that says an ignoramous can have a marked influence on leadership that affects not just him but other people who are not ignoramouses.
The only alternative I see is a benevolent dictatorship, but historically those haven't existed and quite possibly we'd need a supra-human to do one, like if Jesus came back and formed his own government, otherwise for now I'm not sure how we can do better, although a basic questionairre required to vote may not be terrible.
The only alternative I see is a benevolent dictatorship, but historically those haven't existed and quite possibly we'd need a supra-human to do one, like if Jesus came back and formed his own government, otherwise for now I'm not sure how we can do better, although a basic questionairre required to vote may not be terrible.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Pretty good summary. I think it was Churchhill that said that spending 5 minutes talking with the average voter would convince you that everyone shouldn't have the right to vote
One change I would make is that anyone receiving benefits from the government, including salary, should not be able to vote.
Anyone receiving welfare payments, employees of the government, etc. Only exception would be military folks being able to vote.
Those paying but receiving no direct benefit (in the form of wages or supplemental payments) should be the ones voting.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Pretty good summary. I think it was Churchhill that said that spending 5 minutes talking with the average voter would convince you that everyone shouldn't have the right to vote
One change I would make is that anyone receiving benefits from the government, including salary, should not be able to vote.
Anyone receiving welfare payments, employees of the government, etc. Only exception would be military folks being able to vote.
Those paying but receiving no direct benefit (in the form of wages or supplemental payments) should be the ones voting.
That's one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a while. Even worse than the guy here at work who thinks we should build giant AC units to help refreeze the melting glaciers.
How do you define benefits? Does a government contract count as benefits? If the government gives a contract to Boeing and you get hired because of it, does that count? What about lower interest federal student loans? That's in effect a payment... and it directly impacts a large amount of college bound people. Should we be discouraging people from going to college? In addition, those with government jobs still have to pay taxes on their wages (and what they purchase, etc... etc.) Wouldn't this be taxation without representation? Why do members of the military get a free pass? There are tons and tons of problems with disenfranchising people who receive money from the government. (besides the obvious constitutional violations) I don't agree with disenfranchising anyone, ever. I still think felons should be able to vote. If you are a citizen of a country and its laws apply to you, you should have a say in what those laws are.
Churchill's actual quote was something to the effect of that one of the best arguments against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. He didn't say anything about restricting these people from voting... it was more of an indictment of the system in general. Of course Churchill also said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried.
Churchill's actual quote was something to the effect of that one of the best arguments against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. He didn't say anything about restricting these people from voting... it was more of an indictment of the system in general. Of course Churchill also said that democracy was the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
Our founders created the greatest government ever in the history of civilization. They knew, however, that government by any means is still a vacuum, which will by instinct, suck up any power willfully released by its people. While our laws have always been a barrier separating the power vacuum of government, the people have allowed holes by not living up to the responsibility of holding government accountable to the Constitution and ideals by which our government was founded.
We unfortunately have forgot about the evils of government, and we have done so because with great power comes great responsibility, and we as a people have become too weak to take on the heavy responsibility that comes with freedom and government through representation.
It is sympathy for the devil.
We unfortunately have forgot about the evils of government, and we have done so because with great power comes great responsibility, and we as a people have become too weak to take on the heavy responsibility that comes with freedom and government through representation.
It is sympathy for the devil.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 65,967
- 14,358
- 146
Without going into a total rant and meltdown. I'll just say that perhaps the biggest problem I see with the US government is that it's corrupt to its core. It has become a self-serving beast that requires constant financial feedings, and the corporate keepers are there to sooth the beast's hunger pangs...in return, those corporate keepers get special treatment from the beast that we mere citizens could never hope to see...
We need to start over. I know, not practical. All the elected officials in Washington plus their staff should be kicked out . All the current salaries and benefits for members of the US Congress should be cut. Their retirement plan should reflect what John Doe receives and they should pay into the SS System. There should be term limits on Congressmen. I've got more but it ain't gonna happen.
The whole system is corrupt IMHO.
The whole system is corrupt IMHO.
BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
I was referring to direct payments such as welfare (housing) or employees (UDSA inspectors).
I've never technically fleshed it out into things like student grants, just going with the big overall idea of those who get payments directly.
The problem I have is why should a person (welfare recipient) be receiving money from a taxpayer (me) and have control over the process?
It's easy to blame Bush for his failings, but I'd much rather blame the people who voted for him. Twice.
If welfare benefits were the only things that our government controlled, you might have a better case. (although I still wouldn't agree) Why should a citizen subject to US laws have no say in what those laws are? Just because you got a job at the USDA why should that mean that you have no influence over say... if we go to war in Iran or not? (okay, not like you might have much influence anyway but it's the principle.)
Not only that, but the number of people on government assistance compared to the overall population of voters is small. It's not like some welfare cabal has taken control of the government and forced us all to subsidize their sloth.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
It should be understood that if you're going to allow freedom, you have to subject yourself to the possibility that fools can reach the same point of power than geniuses can.
Otherwise, we start separating people by their perceived intellect into social classes, sort of like in Gattaca.
YES. But you have to keep in mind that the government was designed from the beginning with full acknowledgment of many of its flaws. For example, some people being only '3/5ths' of a person, but also the very idea of checks & balances, the bill of rights, the supreme court being UNELECTED, the house having tons of elections...
it was all made that way because they knew that the US government WOULD be flawed. There is NO getting around it, no matter what kind of government you have.
Now, as for the "calls for change" -- I see them as an empty rhetorical device. Politicians call for change because its an idea that everyone can see value in....Unfortunately, while the 'idea' of change is always an appealing part of a political movement, it is meaningless without specifics to back it up. Of course...those specifics are NOT going to be appealing to everybody, so politicians find it best to keep those quiet.
Now...delving deeper into your question...I would say that the problem is not in our government, our political policies, or our politics. It goes far deeper. Our society is going through a quiet revolution. Technology is changing how we communicate at a breakneck pace, our local cultures are constantly fighting a battle against corporate 'standardization,' and the average Joe is working more hours, spending less time with family and friends, and spending far more mental energy dealing with the plethora of choices offered by modern technology than was fathomable just fifteen or twenty years ago.
What we need are social/cultural standards to deal with modern life, a revitalization of basic social friendships/support structures, and an easy way to block out unwanted technological distractions.
it was all made that way because they knew that the US government WOULD be flawed. There is NO getting around it, no matter what kind of government you have.
Now, as for the "calls for change" -- I see them as an empty rhetorical device. Politicians call for change because its an idea that everyone can see value in....Unfortunately, while the 'idea' of change is always an appealing part of a political movement, it is meaningless without specifics to back it up. Of course...those specifics are NOT going to be appealing to everybody, so politicians find it best to keep those quiet.
Now...delving deeper into your question...I would say that the problem is not in our government, our political policies, or our politics. It goes far deeper. Our society is going through a quiet revolution. Technology is changing how we communicate at a breakneck pace, our local cultures are constantly fighting a battle against corporate 'standardization,' and the average Joe is working more hours, spending less time with family and friends, and spending far more mental energy dealing with the plethora of choices offered by modern technology than was fathomable just fifteen or twenty years ago.
What we need are social/cultural standards to deal with modern life, a revitalization of basic social friendships/support structures, and an easy way to block out unwanted technological distractions.
Heinlein, like Ayn Rand, is one of those 'phases' it's good to grow out of. It's revealing for people learning about politics to see these wonderful, simple ideologies, but they're wrong.
The thing is, with fiction writers, they're especially able to create scenarios in which their solution is especially suited, and convincing.
If you believe in government activism, the world is filled with poor, with a story how they are helped by a program. If you are libertarian, it's about how someone faces an oppressive, incompetent government that is stifling society, but this one man by violating the government's policies, does something wonderful.
Heinlein is quite entertaining with his gruff, independent protagonists who do not suffer fools gladly, but that's a far cry from the policies he advocates actually working well.
Why is it that every call I see for 'starting over' offers nothing useful in the way of how to prevent the same problems?
At least you tried something - but they're things that would make it worse.
Cut the pay for Congress more, and you either get the good people not wanting to lose out on the much better incomes they could get, or more likely, you increase the corruption as they want the added income even more. Term limits on Congressmen deny the nation its best people who serve for long times, and increases the power of the parties to pick new, unknown people constantly whose loyalties are to the party for being chosen, not the people.
Want to improve things? Get rid of the absurd and destructive rules allowing for corporations to influence the political system so much with their money.
Just 'starting over' will break a lot more than it fixes. A lot of people don't seem to realize things could be a lot worse, too.
A famous conservative, Edmund Burke, once said not to tear down a fence until you know why it was put up. A lot of voters today are first negligent at getting informed, and then they fall for lies as a result and get bad things, and then they want to 'start the system over' in frustration, not realizing that they'll just be handing even more power to the wrong people.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
If you take into account all the various lobby groups which are essentially welfare for the well-connected then I would say there IS a welfare cabal running this country. Lobbyists of all stripes grease their way into our pocketbooks through ever increasing taxes to fund their pet projects.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Talk about non-solutions. :roll:
Please Craig, enlighten us. How will you prevent lobbying? By boring politicians and corporate executives alike to death with your inane 8 page diatribes of partisan hackery?
People can be bought. You may not like it, but it's a fact. And if government is heavily entwined with business whether through regulation, government contracts, or other forms of corporate welfare, there's a lot of money to be made by buying the people in charge of making government decisions. It's something you simply won't get around. You want big government, fine. Just accept that it comes with big corruption.
Kneejerk reaction here, but I think the biggest problem facing our nation today is unchecked corporate greed and influence on the political process. I'm not against corporations mind you, I understand that they serve a very important function in our society. But there is unbalanced amount of power that they hold compared to the other legal entities that the government is supposed to serve, the people.
Get rid of lobbyists and I think things would work out a lot better... or atleast a little bit better..
Get rid of lobbyists and I think things would work out a lot better... or atleast a little bit better..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter